In this regard see also Neagoe, The Trial of the Gospel.
23. I am intentionally avoiding the term “supernatural,” as this carries with it a post-Enlightenment assumption that the world is governed by natural laws; this is clearly an anachronism when one considers the worldview of a first-century audience. Hume defined a miracle as “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent” (Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding, 115 n. 1). This is the definition used by Swinburne, Concept of Miracle, 11 (“a violation of a law of nature by a god”). Swinburne makes a similar point to the one above concerning the supernatural nature of miracles; he argues that through the inclusion of the phrase “by a god” in the definition of miracle one must consider miracles as “in accordance with the divinely ordained natural order as a whole” (Concept of Miracle, 9). More recently, D. Basinger and R. Basinger argue for two definitions of miracle: (i) “a permanently inexplicable event directly caused by God”; and (ii) “an awe-producing naturally explicable event directly caused by God” (Philosophy and Miracle, 23).
24. See, e.g., Kertelge, “Die Wunder Jesu,” 71–105; Polhill, “Perspectives on the Miracle Stories,” 389–99; Weder, “Wunder Jesu,” 25–49; Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 49–87; Engelbrecht, “Trends in Miracle Research,” 139–61; Twelftree, “The History of Miracles,” 191–208; Kollmann, “Images of Hope.”
25. Spinoza argued that reports of miracles actually act as obstacles to faith because they claim the breaking of natural laws established by God. Similarly, Schleiermacher maintained that the universe and its inner workings were creative acts of God; if a miracle occurs which contradicts this natural order found in the universe, it would be a contradiction in the nature of God himself. See Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 52–53.
26. Harnack, for example, maintained that the stories which related healing miracles represented accounts of actual events; he went on to say, however, that the healing itself could be explained through natural means. He rejected any miracles which, in his opinion, seemed to break natural laws. See Harnack, What is Christianity? 23–30.
27. See Maier, “Wunderexegese,” 55. It should be noted that Maier attempts through his essay to argue that since the nineteenth-century scholarly attitudes toward the synoptic miracle reports have slowly changed from that which is described here to a general acceptance of the historicity of many miracle stories.
28. See, e.g., two works by Fiebig: Jüdische Wundergeschichten; idem, Rabbinische Wundergeschichten.
29. Examples include: Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder; Fiebig, Antike Wundergeschichten; Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen; and Bieler, Theios aner.
30. Fiebig denies the historicity of the miracle accounts, and therefore minimizes the significance of these elements of the gospels. But for him this is not a problem, because, as Fiebig states, “das für uns heutzutage Wertvollste in den Evangelien liegt nicht in den Wundergeschichten, sondern in den Worten Jesu” (Jüdische Wundergeschichten, 97–98).
31. One idea proposed by the History of Religions school that continued to influence the study of synoptic miracles is that of the Hellenistic θεῖος ἀνήρ. The idea of the θεῖος ἀνήρ, or “divine man,” was first introduced by Reitzenstein (Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 26–27), and given full expression by Bieler (Theios aner) approximately two decades later. Reitzenstein argues that the origin of the theios anēr can be found in the spread of the cults of deities in the ancient world. Wandering religious figures, prophets for their respective gods, were responsible for the proliferation of these ancient cults in remote areas away from the normal trade routes. These figures were able to foresee the future and know people’s thoughts, heal the sick, and even restore life to the dead. Bieler’s contribution was to survey various first, second, and third-century Greco-Roman works, as well as the canonical gospels and the apocryphal Acts (ibid., 7–8), and from these sources deduce a standardized portrait of the Hellenistic divine man. According to Bieler, such a figure in the ancient sources was characterized by an extraordinary situation surrounding his birth, often involving some type of communication or relationship between the parents and the gods. Also, the divine man was normally an outstanding student who amazed his teachers, eventually becoming a virtuous adult who was able to see into the future and perform miraculous works involving nature, demons, and the healing of those afflicted with illnesses. Finally, amazing events normally surround the death of the figure—signs and portents appear; the body of the figure vanishes, or the figure appears after his death (ibid., 44–48).
Within the last forty years, the concept of the theios anēr as a point of entry for discussing the gospel miracle accounts has continued to be attractive to scholars; summaries of the development of the concept of the Hellenistic divine man and its application to gospel research can be found in the following: M. Smith, “Prolegomena,” 174–99; Tiede, Charismatic Figure; and Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism, 15–45. Holladay’s summary concentrates on the process of transmission of the concept of a Hellenistic divine man through Hellenistic-Judaism (in which it was combined with the OT idea of a “man of God”) to the Christian authors of the NT. For critiques and nuanced perspectives, see Tiede, Charismatic Figure; Holladay, Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism; Betz, “Jesus as Divine Man,” 114–33; Achtemeier, “Gospel Miracle Tradition,” 174–97; Talbert, “Concept of Immortals,” 419–36. In this last essay, Talbert opines that the idea of a theios anēr is “an auxiliary concern because of its importance in current discussion in NT study” (“Concept of Immortals,” 419 n. 1, citing Achtemeier, “Gospel Miracle Traditions”). Rather than focus on the author’s intention, as Achtemeier and Betz do, Talbert emphasizes what the ancient audience would have understood, arguing that there were originally two concepts of divine men, namely the immortals and that of the theios anēr. These two eventually merged, the point of contact between them being the virtuous life that characterized both types of figures. While some early Christians argued that Jesus was unique, others embraced the idea of a virtuous immortal, and used it in their portrayals of Jesus. For a more recent critique of theios anēr Christology, see Pilgaard, “Hellenistic Theios Aner,” 101–22.
32. The following discussion is from his From Tradition to Gospel, 37–103.
33. See Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 218–44.
34. He states, “It is characteristic of the miracle itself that the actual miraculous event is almost never described, . . . only the accompanying circumstances” (Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 221; emphasis in original).
35. See, e.g., Engelbrecht, “Trends in Miracle Research,” 141.
36. Theissen, The Miracle Stories. This volume is a translation of his Urchristliche Wundergeschichten.
37. Functionality in three different areas is considered: the social function,
